Hazley v. State

Full title: RODERICK HAZLEY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Oct 31, 2003

860 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Opinion

Case No. : 5D03-3098.

Opinion filed October 31, 2003.

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, John H. Adams, Sr., Judge.

Roderick Hazley, Lowell, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court's denial of the appellant's rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Hersey v. State, 831 So.2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). We certify conflict with Green v. State, 839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, Franklin v. State, Nos. SC03-413, SC03-532 (Fla. Sept. 19, 2003) (consolidating the appeals in Green and State v. Franklin, 836 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), to review interdistrict conflict).

AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.

SHARP, W. and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

SAWAYA, C.J., concurring and concurring specially.

I have previously expressed the reasons why I believe Hersey v. State, 831 So.2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), and its progeny are wrongly decided and why I believe the decision in Green v. State, 839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, Franklin v. State, Nos. SC03-413, SC03-532 (Fla. Sept. 19, 2003) (consolidating the appeals in Green and State v. Franklin, 836 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), to review interdistrict conflict), is the correct statement of the law. Pena v. State, 853 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (Sawaya, C.J., concurring and concurring specially); Fillyaw v. State, 853 So.2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (Sawaya, C.J., concurring specially). Because Hersey is binding precedent in this district, I must concur in the majority opinion, albeit very reluctantly.